The Seahawks rolled the dice and gave Terrell Owens another shot, but cut him on Sunday. (US Presswire) The Seahawks rolled the dice and gave Terrell Owens another shot, but cut him on Sunday. (US Presswire)

Now that Terrell Owens' NFL career is all but over, it's not too soon to ask how and when the guy should make it to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Because he shouldn't. Never, ever, ever.

People tell me he's a slam dunk and point to prodigious numbers that have him tied for second in touchdown catches, second in yardage and sixth in catches overall -- and that's great. Only there's one problem: This isn't the Fantasy Football Hall of Fame. So while those numbers are impressive, they don't write his ticket.More on Terrell OwensColumnsMike FreemanOwens might have been a jerk at times, but he is without question a Hall of FamerRelated Stories

No, there must be something else, and there is: At the peak of his career -- that is, when he was considered one of the game's elite receivers -- three teams couldn't wait to get rid of the guy. The San Francisco 49ers dumped him for a conditional fifth-round pick and a defensive lineman who played five games. Philadelphia cut him. So did Dallas.

Hey, even the Allen Wranglers of the Indoor Football League got into the act, releasing him this spring after he failed to show for a scheduled appearance at a local children's hospital and refused to play in two road games.

Now the kicker: Owens was part of the team's ownership.

So you tell me: If Terrell Owens was such a valuable receiver ... if, as his supporters say, he's a bona fide Hall of Famer and one of the best ever ... why did three NFL teams run away from him when he was at the top of his game? Never mind, I'll spare you the trouble: Because he was a load, a negative and disruptive influence they couldn't and wouldn't tolerate.

One of his former coaches told me, he was "the most divisive guy" he'd ever coached, and, just a guess, but I have a hunch Jeff Garcia, Donovan McNabb and Tony Romo know what he's talking about. At one time or another, all were torched by Owens, who renewed his criticism of Romo this summer -- saying he lost "respect" for him.

All were successful quarterbacks, too, with each making it to the Pro Bowl several times, and, yeah, OK, so Owens made it six times and was named All-Pro five. I never said he wasn't talented or productive. But let me repeat: This isn't fantasy football, folks. This is about professionals who represent what's best and memorable about the NFL, and Terrell Owens wasn't good enough to last with three teams when he was an All-Pro.

No, I don't count Buffalo and Cincinnati because they happened at the end of Owens' career, and he was a descending player by then. But I do know that when he and Chad Ochocinco were out of the lineup at the end of the 2010 season in Cincinnati, the Bengals' offense ran better and looked better, and I can tell you why in three words.

Addition by subtraction.

I also know that when Owens was introduced to the Dallas media in March 2006, there was someone notable missing from that news conference, and that someone was then-Dallas coach Bill Parcells. That wasn't an accident. By not appearing, Parcells made it clear where he stood with the move, and it wasn't behind the man who made it, Cowboys' owner Jerry Jones.

The expectation then was that Owens would put Dallas over the top ... only it never happened. The Cowboys didn't win a playoff game with him. In fact, in Owens' first season with Dallas it was Philadelphia, not the Cowboys, that won the NFC East.

Without Owens, the Eagles were a better team, and they proved it that season, beating Dallas both times they met.

The Cowboys wouldn't win a playoff game until 2009, the year after Owens left, and Cincinnati reached the playoffs with a rookie quarterback in 2011 ... the year after Owens left. Connect the dots, people. It's not difficult to draw conclusions.

I don't deny that Terrell Owens put up huge career numbers, but if quality is measured only by numbers McDonald's would be a five-star restaurant. Terrell Owens did what was best for Terrell Owens, and the numbers speak for themselves. But so does the list of employers.

I don't know if Owens plays again, and, frankly, I don't care. But if he couldn't make a 75-man cut after a season out of the game, I'd say his chances of sticking with anyone at this stage of his life (he turns 39 in December) are remote.

That's why it's not too soon to start dissecting his legacy, and, yeah, I was there for his last-second TD catch in the 1998 playoffs, and I was there when he hauled down nine passes in Super Bowl XXXIX in a performance that was as marvelous as it was courageous.

But I know too many coaches and teammates he wore out, good people who grew tired of his act and felt their teams were better off without him. Guaranteed, the Hall of Fame selectors know them, too, and that will diminish his chances of making it to Canton.

Sure, he could make the final 15 finalists, and, with luck, he might even make the cut to the final 10 one day. But the guy should never make it into the Pro Football Hall of Fame -- and not because he didn't have the talent or the numbers.

Nope, this one runs deeper, and it has everything to do with Owens failing to grasp that football is more than just a showcase for his abilities. Terrell Owens was a difference maker, all right, but too often it was for all the wrong reasons. So let me ask one more time: If three teams didn't want him when he was at his best, why should the Pro Football Hall of Fame?

I don't think it's about being a jerk, I think it's about dismantling three teams. A HOF player should not be a guy that in the prime of his career, people avoid for fear of making them worse. Once T.O. left San Fran and his first year in Philly, he never helped any teams.

A great player indeed, but Canton shouldn't be honoring his type of player. There is a difference between T.O. and Dennis Rodman. While Rodman's antics didn't make him many friends, there was no doubt that his presence on a team was extremely beneficial.

How is that the case with Owens? Sure, he helped push the '04 Eagles over the top, but due to his conflicts with the QB, he single-handledly turned the league's best team into one of its worst (13-3 to 6-10). Then once they dumped him the Eagles jumped back up to 10-6. The Cowboys did not improve a bit with him in the lineup, and didn't win a playoff game until he was gone.

Terrell Owens personifies my belief of how overrated WRs are in today's game.

You contradict yourself here, Pudge. If the WR is over rated, how does he dismantle a team? How can you say having this one guy or not having him at an over rated pos as being that big of a deal? I think you have to go by numbers. Is that completely fair? Probably not. But we gauge Presidents on how the economy is doing when they are in charge while this one man's impact on that is actually pretty negligible. Perhaps apples and oranges but Dale Murphy is probably about as close to Jesus in cleats as you will find in pro sports, was a two time league MVP but his numbers don't add up enough to put him in the HOF. Despite his great locker room presence he played for some fairly awful teams. In fact, it could be argued the longer he played for them the worse they got. TO is nearly 40. His "prime" was a remarkably long time. He was a game changer. Is he a complete and utter jack-ass? I think that might be fair to say. I get your point but I disagree with it.

So many of the HOF voters put their agenda in there. Frankly, I am not sure how the NFL doe sit but I know MLB has alot of writers and so on who weigh in. All the steroid era guys are going to have a hard tie getting in but, really, how do you say a guy with M. McGwire's numbers doesn't get in? Gaylord Perry, a notoroius spitballer, is in there. Plenty of dirty players, bigots, jerk offs and reprobates...even amurderer or two are in the the HOF. do you punish a player because the league ineffectively policed itself? Or overly effective (Pete Rose, Joe Jackson)? TO is emblematic of the modern player, modern man--I am worth what I cost. By the tiem he was jumping from team to team most players are already retired. Does Randy Moss get in? Plax?

He's not conflicting with his previous statements. His previous statements are that WRs are a shiny hood ornament for a functional offense. As such, their on-field performance does not contribute a lot towards wins and losses. While I agree that this is somewhat accurate, there's a huge difference between having Julio Jones on your team vs James Rodgers.

Terrell Owens, while a productive receiver, was a monkey wrench in the engine. His position was irrelevant. Where he lined up on the field had nothing to do with the trouble that he caused the organizations. For teams to truly, "click," there needs to be some sense of camaraderie. With TO, that was extremely hard to achieve.

You contradict yourself here, Pudge. If the WR is over rated, how does he dismantle a team? How can you say having this one guy or not having him at an over rated pos as being that big of a deal?

Not a contradiction. My theory on WRs being overrated lives largely off the fact that their production is largely hollow. Collectively a group of WRs production is a reflection of the play of the QB. Honoring an individual WR is basically like honoring a third of the QB. However people tend to treat WR production as if it exists in a vacuum, yet it doesn't.

backnblack wrote:

I think you have to go by numbers. Is that completely fair? Probably not.

I think that is a reflection of one of the problems I think plagues current HOF voting. Is that you have a bunch of "baseball-minded" people thinking about football. In baseball, it is about the numbers. It's a team game, but it's basically 1 man vs. 9 others. And among those 9, only 1 (the pitcher) really matters on a given play.

Since football is an 11 vs. 11 "true" team sport, then you should honor HOFers based more upon their impact to their respective teams rather than simply looking at numbers. Of course numbers should be given large consideration, but not at the expense of team impact. If a guy has great numbers, and is a jerk or bastard off the field in baseball, it doesn't matter really because it's really about his individual production if he's a batter or pitcher. Even there are some examples in football where that could be the case. But with those guys, there's never a doubt about their football impact (e.g. Lawrence Taylor) in that they made their teams much, much better.

We cannot say this about T.O. For however many times he improved a team ('04 Eagles and 49ers previously), he also impacted in making teams bad ('05 Eagles, Cowboys, Bills, Bengals).

The HOF should not be honoring players like that where there is doubt whether you would want to have them on their team. How does that make sense? Walking by Terrell Owens bust in 30 years, I could be telling my grandson that he would most definitely be picked last if you were picking playground-style because nobody wants to deal with the headaches he causes.

It should not be a matter of debate whether a HOF player caused more headaches than he created. And if he is, then he better be Reggie White, Bruce Smith, Jim Brown, Johnny U, or Lawrence Taylor where there is no doubt about how huge he was for his respective team.

So...TO made the Bills bad? Really? A shiny hood ornament brings down a whole team? All 11 of them? A team that sucked since Jim Kelly left town? This is what I call contradictory. The 49ers sucked for years after he left...was he the reason or did he leave because they sucked? I get your point, again, I just don't agree with it. As for baseball, pitchers are always judged on win/loss but remember the never ending arguments when Vick was here how that didn't matter for a QB? Well, I actually think it does. Agree to disagree here. TO will being HOF whether it is the agenda of the PC NFL or not.

OK, T.O. didn't make the Bills bad. But let's imagine a scenario where some other future HOF wide receivers would have wound up in Buffalo, such as Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, or Calvin Johnson. Would they have lasted only 1 season with that team itching to get rid of him? No, they woudln't have. That's that negative impact I'm talking about. If the HOF honors the greats, then what does that say about Owens' "greatness" if multiple teams couldn't wait to get rid of him. That doesn't sound like a great player. What current HOF player would that describe? Yeah, that sounds exactly like the type of player that should be enshrined with the greatest players to play the game of football, as a guy that 5 different teams breathed a sigh of relief once he was shipped out of town.

That is ultimately the task of the HOF voters. It has to feel right, thus why its not about the numbers. The HOF is supposed to be honoring guys that 100 years from fans of the game can stroll through Canton and know who were the greats that played throughout time and in this current era.

And to me I don't think that describes Terrell Owens in a single instance. The fact that you can essentially sum up Owens career as being "An elite receiver that for every team he played for was accused of either poisoning the locker room, being a distraction, or being a 'coach-killer'" immediately disqualifies him for the Hall of Fame.

BTW, the 49ers stunk after they lost T.O. because of 7 years of the Alex Smith Experiment Going Awry.

Because TO isn't like Fitz he deserves exclusion? How about Randy Moss? TO is a product of the modern post-Deion NFL where guys are "personalities" with Twitter accounts and shoe endorsements. Rodman is a good example. He mad ehis teams better and for most of his career TO did too. He did rot the eagles out from the locker room but he also took them to the SB. He threw D McNabb under the bus but, guess what? Some of the stuff he said about Donovan was true. TO's a d-bag. He comes from 20 miles up the road from here. He's got more psychological baggage than Michael Jackson. But the guy was a complete baller on the field and, aside from drama, stayed out of trouble off of it. We'll just have to agree to disagree on Terrell but in five years or so he's in.

No, it's not just Fitz, it's Fitz AND EVERY OTHER wide receiver that has or will deserve enshrinement.

backnblack wrote:

How about Randy Moss?

Moss is borderline. But because Moss was only considered a cancer in 4 of the 13 years (last yr. in MIN + 2 yrs. in OAK, + 2010) he played in the NFL, I could/would argue that his positive impact outweighed his negative. Not so with T.O., who played 15 years, and 7 of his last 8 years he was considered a locker room cancer.

And since you like numbers, here's their two numbers in their good years, when they weren't cancers.

So if I'm making the argument that Moss belongs in, it would be that Moss was a superior player when both were good as well as had significant less bad years than Owens did. Thus if Moss is borderline for his "baggage" then Owens is definitely outside the bubble.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum